Evidence2 + Evidence3 = Evidence5 ≡ Evidence = One (Double Evidence Plus Triple Evidence Equals Quintuple Evidence If and Only If Evidence Is Unitary)
Further Remarks on the Evidential Method for Scholarship on Ancient China 再論中國古代學術證據法
(證2 + 證3 = 證5 ≡ 證 = 一（二重證據法加三重證據法等於五重證據法當且僅當終應歸一的證據）)
ISBN : 978-988-12977-1-6
Distributed for HKU Jao Tsung-I Petite École 香港大學饒宗頤學術館
116 pages, 5.5″ x 8.25″, 6 color illus.
Throughout the twentieth century, the “Double Evidence Method” advocated by Wang Guowei was the most important research method for the cultural history of ancient China. However, in 1982, Jao Tsung-i proposed a “Triple Evidence Method,” adding material culture to the “paper sources” and “underground sources” of Wang Guowei. In 2003, Jao again discussed scholarly methods, and added two more “indirect” types of evidence: “anthropological sources” and “ancient historical sources of other countries.” What constitutes evidence, how to use evidence, and how to decide the weight to give to evidence are the first problems encountered by historians. The views of Wang Guowei and Jao Tsung-i can be considered as the mainstream of contemporary history, and in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, of which Edward L. Shaughnessy was co-editor, the editors adopted this methodology as the basic structure of the book. Nevertheless, after the book was published, the editors discovered that not all scholars accept this viewpoint. Two book reviews were published raising pointed criticisms from two different standpoints: one said that the editors had under-emphasized traditional Chinese literature, while the other said that they had over-emphasized the historicity of traditional Chinese literature, and because of this their results were “unscientific” and “non-objective.” In this book, Shaughnessy first provided a brief overview of twentieth century viewpoints regarding historical research methods, and then gave a more detailed discussion of the editorial work on and readers’ responses to The Cambridge History of Ancient China.